Jump to content

Heresy 215 - Hammering Out the Timeline


Melifeather

Recommended Posts

@Ran Thank you!

@Feather Crystal Well, I know now what I am going to be doing over my Christmas break while my toddler naps - going through all the citations in the books! hahaha

3 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Surely it didn't take Arthur a year to find them

I'm in my paperback version of Feast as I type. page 645-646

Quote

"The smallfolk too, " sniffed her daughter. "ser Harwyn says they hide them and feed them, and when he asks where they've gone, they lie. They lie to their own lords!"
"have their tongues out," urged Strongboard.
"Good luck getting answers then," said Jaime. "If you want their help, you need to make them love you. That was how Arthur Dayne did it, when we rode against the Kingswood Brotherhood.  He paid the smallfolk for the food we ate, brought their grievances to King Aerys, expanding the graxing lands around their villages, even won them the right to fell a certain number of trees each year and take af ew of the king's deer during the autumn. The forest folk and looked to Toyne to defend them, but Ser Arthur did more from them that the Brotherhood could ever hope to do, and wont them to our side. After that, the rest was easy."

Based on that passage, if he was taking their grievances to Aerys, building relationships, I would bet money it took that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have figuered it out. Basicly the author assumes that Bella, one of Robert's bastards, was conceived at the battle. And Robb was conceived afterwards in Riverrun. And thus Bella has to be a little older than Robb. That is not helping our case, as we can not even come to a conclusion if the wedding was before or after Bells.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

@Ran Thank you!

@Feather Crystal Well, I know now what I am going to be doing over my Christmas break while my toddler naps - going through all the citations in the books! hahaha

I'm in my paperback version of Feast as I type. page 645-646

Based on that passage, if he was taking their grievances to Aerys, building relationships, I would bet money it took that long.

 

It does seem to imply it took Arthur awhile, now find your reasoning for placing the tourney in the middle of 281 versus the end of 281.

Arthur's detachment could be compared to Beric Dondarrion. How long was it from when Ned sent Beric to deal with Gregor Clegane's raiders before Ned was killed?

12 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

I have figuered it out. Basicly the author assumes that Bella, one of Robert's bastards, was conceived at the battle. And Robb was conceived afterwards in Riverrun. And thus Bella has to be a little older than Robb. That is not helping our case, as we can not even come to a conclusion if the wedding was before or after Bells.

 

Well, the wiki has Bella's birth year as 283, which is unhelpful because there's no way to confirm the date of the Battle from that. It could be either year. 

The timeline can only be outlined by inserting several events. Moving one thing too far backwards or forwards throws everything off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lady Rhodes said:

I agree with you, but multiple canonical and semi-canonical sources list the Rebellion ending with the Sack and not the siege.  I am leaning towards this being an editing error because for it to be true - Ned took a very wide detour from King's Landing to Storm's End at the end of the war, and it is wonky with Robert's arrival times at the beginning of the war.  If the Battle of the Bells is at the beginning of 283 (and, like I said, the wiki states it is the first battle of 283) then there is a really long time between Ashford and the bells for the siege to start at the end of Ashford and for the siege to last a year.  OR - the siege didn't really last a year. Times are a bit wonky.

We don't have, and never will have, official start and end dates to the rebellion.  GRRM is only telling us the people it affected consider it taking about a year.

Gulltown could be considered the start of the rebellion, but any time before could as well, Rickard death, Lyanna's kidnapping, etc.  Lots of things led up to this. 

Similarly, Rhaegar's death could be considered the end, as the Targaryens had no chance of winning after.  But the end could also be Dragonstone finally under Robert's control, or anything in the middle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

@Feather Crystal I will work on it! You are right that I have leaned a little too closely on the wiki, so I will work on finding specific textual evidence.

The wiki can be helpful, but I mainly use it to locate the cited source so that I can locate the relevant text. I have the books in digital form, which makes it handy for searching using key words, but sometimes coming up with the correct key words can be challenging!

What else are we gonna do until the next book comes out. Ammaright? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Feather Crystal  Exactly! haha

I am going to have a time of it. We (my husband and I) have our world book and Game lent out right now, and we recently moved and I cannot.find.Clash.anywhere. But I just finished a reread of Dance, reading Feast again now (it was in my purse hahaha so it was easy to reference) and I know where Storm is.  So...I'll work at it. 

Yes! Ebook would be great but I see what you are saying - kind of like Bran in the weirwood net - he can have access to everything but how do you know what to access??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use this. https://asearchoficeandfire.com/

It doesn't always help, as it provides no context, so I still have to take the books out and read the context in the chapter (or the entire chapter, like when I thought Arya was at the tourney of the Hand, which the wiki btw. still thinks). I also find the wiki underwhelming, as it lacks precision in many cases. On top of that the references are often pointing to the wrong text, e.g. I need the asoiaf search just to verify the wiki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lady Rhodes said:

@Feather Crystal@Ran@Rhaenys_Targaryen There are links to the chapters, though, at the bottom of these pages. I am assuming that these chapter links are the textual citations of where this knowledge can be gleaned from the books, am I correct?

Could you perhaps explain what exactly the issue is? Because I'm not entirely up to speed with this particular conversation, but if you explain I might be of some help :)

But you are right, the citations that are linked are supposed to point to chapters where the information is to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

I use this. https://asearchoficeandfire.com/

It doesn't always help, as it provides no context, so I still have to take the books out and read the context in the chapter (or the entire chapter, like when I thought Arya was at the tourney of the Hand, which the wiki btw. still thinks). I also find the wiki underwhelming, as it lacks precision in many cases. On top of that the references are often pointing to the wrong text, e.g. I need the asoiaf search just to verify the wiki.

I just found this!!! I think it will help us hammer out at least some things.

@Rhaenys_Targaryen We are trying to figure out the timeline of the Rebellion, the events prior to that, and the events immediately following.  @Feather Crystal and believe we have determined that Rhaegar and Elia were born early 280 (Jan) and Rhaenys was born in late 280 (Oct-Nov), taking into account her being abed for 6 months, the earliest Aegon could have been born is Jan 282.

Beyond that, we are all getting fuzzy. 

I am of the belief (and I am currently trying to gather textual evidence for) that we are led to believe that the Tourney of Harrenhal and Lyanna's abduction are close together, when they are not.  I think Elia was in the very early stages of her pregnancy (if she even knew) during the tourney of Harrenhal, and that the tournament was held in May-July 281.  @Feather Crystalbelieves it was closer the end of 281. I also think that the attack on Elia from the Kingswood Brotherhood occurred at the beginning of 280, when she was coming to Kings Landing from Dorne to be wed. We found a bit of textual evidence for this (above) that would suggest that ridding the Kingswood of the brotherhood would have taken some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Could you perhaps explain what exactly the issue is? Because I'm not entirely up to speed with this particular conversation, but if you explain I might be of some help :)

 But you are right, the citations that are linked are supposed to point to chapters where the information is to be found.

The specific problem is the calculation of the Battle of the Bells and how Robb's birthday is taken to calculate the birthday of Bella. As we can not even decide when the double wedding took part. There are reasons to believe it was after the battle, but that raises other questions, e.g. the heir situation of Jon Arryn, as hed had an heir, even after the death of Denys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright. So, according to the asearchoficeandfire link, The False Spring Lasted less than two turns and the snow started falling on the last day of the year.

I am still skeptical of the whole business, so I am going to keep looking for clues.  It is noted that Rhaegar was not on Dragonstone, nor King's Landing, which messes up other knowledge was have that he was present for Aegon's birth and that Lyanna was taken the year following the tourney.  In short, I think we are right to be slightly skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

I just found this!!! I think it will help us hammer out at least some things.

@Rhaenys_Targaryen We are trying to figure out the timeline of the Rebellion, the events prior to that, and the events immediately following.  @Feather Crystal and believe we have determined that Rhaegar and Elia were born early 280 (Jan) and Rhaenys was born in late 280 (Oct-Nov), taking into account her being abed for 6 months, the earliest Aegon could have been born is Jan 282.

Beyond that, we are all getting fuzzy. 

I am of the belief (and I am currently trying to gather textual evidence for) that we are led to believe that the Tourney of Harrenhal and Lyanna's abduction are close together, when they are not.  I think Elia was in the very early stages of her pregnancy (if she even knew) during the tourney of Harrenhal, and that the tournament was held in May-July 281.  @Feather Crystalbelieves it was closer the end of 281. I also think that the attack on Elia from the Kingswood Brotherhood occurred at the beginning of 280, when she was coming to Kings Landing from Dorne to be wed. We found a bit of textual evidence for this (above) that would suggest that ridding the Kingswood of the brotherhood would have taken some time.

It's easier to start at the beginning:

We know that Rhaegar and Elia were wed in 280 AC and Rhaenys was born that same year., on Dragonstone Elia went on bed rest for "half a year" following the childbirth. An unknown amount of time after she became pregnant of Aegon. Aegon was born around the start of 282 AC, but whether this was in the last few days of 281 AC or the first few days/weeks of 282 AC, we do not know. TWOIAF states:

The False Spring of 281 AC lasted less than two turns. As the year drew to a close, winter returned to Westeros with a vengeance. On the last day of the year, snow began to fall upon King’s Landing, and a crust of ice formed atop the Blackwater Rush. The snowfall continued off and on for the best part of a fortnight, by which time the Blackwater was hard frozen, and icicles draped the roofs and gutters of every tower in the city.


As cold winds hammered the city, King Aerys II turned to his pyromancers, charging them to drive the winter off with their magics. Huge green fires burned along the walls of the Red Keep for a moon’s turn. Prince Rhaegar was not in the city to observe them, however. Nor could he be found in Dragonstone with Princess Elia and their young son, Aegon. With the coming of the new year, the crown prince had taken to the road with half a dozen of his closest friends and confidants, on a journey that would ultimately lead him back to the riverlands. Not ten leagues from Harrenhal, Rhaegar fell upon Lyanna Stark of Winterfell, and carried her off, lighting a fire that would consume his house and kin and all those he loved—and half the realm besides.

The text is unclear about what exactly happened when, but what it does tell us is that the tourney of Harrenhal, which occurred at some point during the False Spring, which in turn lasted less than 2 months, appears to have occurred in the second half of the year 281 AC, as winter returned to Westeros "as the year drew to a close". Again, when exactly cannot really be determined, but Elia's history with pregnancy at least suggests that she was not about to give birth :) But @Feather Crystal's interpretation of closer to the end of 281 AC agrees with the text from TWOIAF. Elia simply was likely pregnant at Harrenhal, although we do not know how far along she would have been. (Did the tourney occur at the start of this 2 month period of the False Spring, for example? How many months passed in between the end of this two month period and the actual last day of the year? There can easily still be a few months in between, which can add up quickly).

 

Regarding the Kingswood Brotherhood, it is difficult to say when Elia was attacked. If you could provide the quote stating she was traveling from the south, please do, because I cannot find it.

The idea that she was attacked as she was coming north to wed is interesting. I've tossed around another idea. We know that Rhaegar came to KL to present Rhaenys at court. I suspect that Elia came to KL after her bedrest was over, and they remained there for a while. During this time, she was travelling with Ser Gerold when she was attacked, perhaps. It would also place her at KL together with Rhaegar to see the red comet the night of Aegon's conception.

 He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. (AFFC, Samwell 4)

Aerys could easily have ignored all the attacks by the Kingswood Brotherhood, but the attack on Elia and Ser Gerold (who was wounded in the process) would have been, in a way, an attack on the king himself. In any case, attacking the royal party would have been one that could not have been ignored, so I suspect that it was not long after this attack that Aerys ordered the campaign to defeat them. That Ser Arthur Dayne took the command, and not Ser Gerold Hightower, might suggest that Gerold had not yet recovered.

At least, that's my theory about it. :)   In any case, we know that the campaign against the Kingswood Brotherhood ended in 281 AC (since Jaime was knighted afterwards at the age of 15, and was born in 266 AC, and the tourney of Harrenhal, which also took place in 281 AC, occurred afterwards). When the campaign began, we do not know, nor how long it lasted.

 

11 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

The specific problem is the calculation of the Battle of the Bells and how Robb's birthday is taken to calculate the birthday of Bella. As we can not even decide when the double wedding took part. There are reasons to believe it was after the battle, but that raises other questions, e.g. the heir situation of Jon Arryn, as hed had an heir, even after the death of Denys. 

8 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

Yes, the wiki states that it was the first battle of 283, but no one can seem to find the text that points to this.

So, we have a few references to the Battle of the Bells, but few state a time. We get one quote on how long it has been, when in mid 300 AC, Jon Connington states that it has been 17 years since the Battle of the Bells. Especially the idea that the reference is made near the middle of the year creates the suggestion that he battle took place in 283 AC.

In addition, we have Jon Connington's 'timeline'.

Connington spent five years with the Golden Company

Jon Connington might have been one of those successors if his exile had gone otherwise. He had spent five years with the company, rising from the ranks to a place of honor at Toyne's right hand. (ADWD, The Lost Lord)

Following that, twelve years passed until he sees them again in 300 AC:

He clasped Griff by the forearm, pulled him into a bone-crushing hug. "You look awful, even for a man's been dead a dozen years. (ADWD, The Lost Lord)

The men of the Golden Company were outside their tents, dicing, drinking, and swatting away flies. Griff wondered how many of them knew who he was. Few enough. Twelve years is a long time. Even the men who'd ridden with him might not recognize the exile lord Jon Connington of the fiery red beard in the lined, clean-shaved face and dyed blue hair of the sellsword Griff. So far as most of them were concerned, Connington had drunk himself to death in Lys after being driven from the company in disgrace for stealing from the war chest. (ADWD, The Lost Lord)

Connington was exiled after the Bells. Spending five years with the Golden Company, followed by an absence from the Company of twelve years, tells us again it has been seventeen years.

 

But that's not the only thing. The Sack of KL occurred in the second half of 283 AC, and likely near the period of sept-oct, given the timing of Daenerys's birth and the time in between her birth and the Sack. With Elia's death occurring during the Sack, we get two further references to a similar event as the Bells being described in regards to timing:

From late 299 AC:

"Dwarf," said the Red Viper, in a tone grown markedly less cordial, "spare me your Lannister lies. Is it sheep you take us for, or fools? My brother is not a bloodthirsty man, but neither has he been asleep for sixteen years. 

From early 300 AC:

He wanted justice for Elia, but he would not wait—"

"He waited ten-and-seven years," the Lady Nym broke in. "Were it you they'd killed, my father would have led his banners north before your corpse was cold. Were it you, the spears would be falling thick as rain upon the marches now."

it would seem that such events as the Sack, and thus likely also the Bells since it is being described in a similar manner. In 299 AC, it had been 16 years ago (299-16=283 AC), but a few short months later, in 300 AC, it had been 17 years ago (300-17=283 AC).

 

Is there room for error? Sure. But what we have at the moment implies that the battle should be seen as occurring in 283 AC, and all that we know further tells us that it should then be very early in the year.

 

 

I also saw some discussion on the length of the war vs the length of the siege of Storm's End. Both are described as having lasted "close to a year". But what is all "close to a year"? 10 months, 11 months, 13 months, perhaps even 14 months? How much time can pass for these characters to still describe it as such? People's opinions on that have differed over the years, but there are a few things to consider:

  • Robert's Rebellion is officially considered to have started when Jon Arryn called his banners, and ended with the Sack. Sure, the siege of Storm's End was still ongoing, and Dragonstone had not yet fallen, yet this is how history records it, according to Yandel.
  • The siege of Storm's End began a while into the war (consider all that happened between war's start and the start of the siege, regardless of how long it would have taken all the armies exactly to travel from location to location), but would have ended reasonably fast after war's end, when Eddard rode forth from KL following his argument with Robert. 

 

So is the "close to a year" that Robert's Rebellion itself lasted the exact same amount of time as the "close to a year" that the siege of Storm's End lasted? My guess (but again, that's my interpretation) is that the war lasted somewhat longer than 12 months (e.g., 13 months), but the siege lasted somewhat less (e.g., 10-11 months). Feel free to disagree :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Could you perhaps explain what exactly the issue is? Because I'm not entirely up to speed with this particular conversation, but if you explain I might be of some help :)

But you are right, the citations that are linked are supposed to point to chapters where the information is to be found.

Hi Rhaenys! It's quite the challenge you've accepted working on the wiki timeline project! I've only seriously starting banging away at it the last week or so, so forgive me if I'm going over ground that you feel has already been settled. I am trying to remain objective here, because I have my own personal theories like anyone else, but by setting down a few known parameters, I think it can be tightened up.

I am familiar with the assertion that the False Spring lasted less than two turns before winter returned, which is kind of weird, because how do you plan a tourney and get everyone there so quickly? But, never mind. We're going with it, because it does seem to fit with some other known parameters.

In my opinion Elia's marriage and years of children's birth years are extremely central, as is the assertion that baby Aegon was about a year old when he was killed. There are also known timelines like the Rebellion lasting a year, and the siege of Storm's End also lasting one year. Robert's defeat at Ashford marks the time when Mace Tyrell would have marched on Storm's End. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think he arrived there about the same time as Robert reached Stoney Sept. Thus we've set a sort of countdown. It depends upon how long you think it took Ned to leave Kings Landing after the Sack to lift the siege. Did it take him more than a month? Two months? Three? Because the length of time it took Ned to get to Storm's End is the same length of time it took Robert to go to Gulltown, then to Storms End to call his banners, move his army and fight three short battles near Summerhal, take captives back to Storms End, then move west to Ashford, and then race north to Stoney Sept. It's a lot, but I guess it depends upon the distance travelled.

Getting back to Elia and why she is so central to the timing. Her marriage to Rhaegar is only given as 280, but it's early enough in the year for Rhaenys to be born also in 280. There's only a 2 month sliding window here. 

Marriage - Jan 280 - Mar 280

Rhaenys Bday - Oct 280 - Dec 280

Elia was bedridden for six months, so unable to travel or conceive until April 281 - June 281 

Likely birth month for Aegon = Jan 282 - Mar 282

Thus the Sack of Kings Landing should have occurred sometime around Jan 283 - Mar 283, unless you feel as Lady Rhodes does that Aegon was 15 months when he was killed, then the Sack could have occurred as late as 3 more months later.

One of the dates we were questioning was when Elia was attacked. The wiki lists 280. So she was attacked prior to giving birth to Rhaenys? Where can I find this information? It's not a pressing issue though, because it has no impact on the timeline for the Rebellion, but the detachment sent out to deal with the Kingswood Brotherhood does. However, if we can use Jaime's knighthood and length of stay at Casterly Rock before going to the tourney of Harrenhal, then we can make an educated guess that the Kingswood Brotherhood was defeated around Sept 281.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It's easier to start at the beginning:

We know that Rhaegar and Elia were wed in 280 AC and Rhaenys was born that same year., on Dragonstone Elia went on bed rest for "half a year" following the childbirth. An unknown amount of time after she became pregnant of Aegon. Aegon was born around the start of 282 AC, but whether this was in the last few days of 281 AC or the first few days/weeks of 282 AC, we do not know. TWOIAF states:

The False Spring of 281 AC lasted less than two turns. As the year drew to a close, winter returned to Westeros with a vengeance. On the last day of the year, snow began to fall upon King’s Landing, and a crust of ice formed atop the Blackwater Rush. The snowfall continued off and on for the best part of a fortnight, by which time the Blackwater was hard frozen, and icicles draped the roofs and gutters of every tower in the city.


As cold winds hammered the city, King Aerys II turned to his pyromancers, charging them to drive the winter off with their magics. Huge green fires burned along the walls of the Red Keep for a moon’s turn. Prince Rhaegar was not in the city to observe them, however. Nor could he be found in Dragonstone with Princess Elia and their young son, Aegon. With the coming of the new year, the crown prince had taken to the road with half a dozen of his closest friends and confidants, on a journey that would ultimately lead him back to the riverlands. Not ten leagues from Harrenhal, Rhaegar fell upon Lyanna Stark of Winterfell, and carried her off, lighting a fire that would consume his house and kin and all those he loved—and half the realm besides.

The text is unclear about what exactly happened when, but what it does tell us is that the tourney of Harrenhal, which occurred at some point during the False Spring, which in turn lasted less than 2 months, appears to have occurred in the second half of the year 281 AC, as winter returned to Westeros "as the year drew to a close". Again, when exactly cannot really be determined, but Elia's history with pregnancy at least suggests that she was not about to give birth :) But @Feather Crystal's interpretation of closer to the end of 281 AC agrees with the text from TWOIAF. Elia simply was likely pregnant at Harrenhal, although we do not know how far along she would have been. (Did the tourney occur at the start of this 2 month period of the False Spring, for example? How many months passed in between the end of this two month period and the actual last day of the year? There can easily still be a few months in between, which can add up quickly).

 

Regarding the Kingswood Brotherhood, it is difficult to say when Elia was attacked. If you could provide the quote stating she was traveling from the south, please do, because I cannot find it.

The idea that she was attacked as she was coming north to wed is interesting. I've tossed around another idea. We know that Rhaegar came to KL to present Rhaenys at court. I suspect that Elia came to KL after her bedrest was over, and they remained there for a while. During this time, she was travelling with Ser Gerold when she was attacked, perhaps. It would also place her at KL together with Rhaegar to see the red comet the night of Aegon's conception.

 He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. (AFFC, Samwell 4)

Aerys could easily have ignored all the attacks by the Kingswood Brotherhood, but the attack on Elia and Ser Gerold (who was wounded in the process) would have been, in a way, an attack on the king himself. In any case, attacking the royal party would have been one that could not have been ignored, so I suspect that it was not long after this attack that Aerys ordered the campaign to defeat them. That Ser Arthur Dayne took the command, and not Ser Gerold Hightower, might suggest that Gerold had not yet recovered.

At least, that's my theory about it. :)   In any case, we know that the campaign against the Kingswood Brotherhood ended in 281 AC (since Jaime was knighted afterwards at the age of 15, and was born in 266 AC, and the tourney of Harrenhal, which also took place in 281 AC, occurred afterwards). When the campaign began, we do not know, nor how long it lasted.

 

So, we have a few references to the Battle of the Bells, but few state a time. We get one quote on how long it has been, when in mid 300 AC, Jon Connington states that it has been 17 years since the Battle of the Bells. Especially the idea that the reference is made near the middle of the year creates the suggestion that he battle took place in 283 AC.

In addition, we have Jon Connington's 'timeline'.

Connington spent five years with the Golden Company

Jon Connington might have been one of those successors if his exile had gone otherwise. He had spent five years with the company, rising from the ranks to a place of honor at Toyne's right hand. (ADWD, The Lost Lord)

Following that, twelve years passed until he sees them again in 300 AC:

He clasped Griff by the forearm, pulled him into a bone-crushing hug. "You look awful, even for a man's been dead a dozen years. (ADWD, The Lost Lord)

The men of the Golden Company were outside their tents, dicing, drinking, and swatting away flies. Griff wondered how many of them knew who he was. Few enough. Twelve years is a long time. Even the men who'd ridden with him might not recognize the exile lord Jon Connington of the fiery red beard in the lined, clean-shaved face and dyed blue hair of the sellsword Griff. So far as most of them were concerned, Connington had drunk himself to death in Lys after being driven from the company in disgrace for stealing from the war chest. (ADWD, The Lost Lord)

Connington was exiled after the Bells. Spending five years with the Golden Company, followed by an absence from the Company of twelve years, tells us again it has been seventeen years.

 

But that's not the only thing. The Sack of KL occurred in the second half of 283 AC, and likely near the period of sept-oct, given the timing of Daenerys's birth and the time in between her birth and the Sack. With Elia's death occurring during the Sack, we get two further references to a similar event as the Bells being described in regards to timing:

From late 299 AC:

"Dwarf," said the Red Viper, in a tone grown markedly less cordial, "spare me your Lannister lies. Is it sheep you take us for, or fools? My brother is not a bloodthirsty man, but neither has he been asleep for sixteen years. 

From early 300 AC:

He wanted justice for Elia, but he would not wait—"

"He waited ten-and-seven years," the Lady Nym broke in. "Were it you they'd killed, my father would have led his banners north before your corpse was cold. Were it you, the spears would be falling thick as rain upon the marches now."

it would seem that such events as the Sack, and thus likely also the Bells since it is being described in a similar manner. In 299 AC, it had been 16 years ago (299-16=283 AC), but a few short months later, in 300 AC, it had been 17 years ago (300-17=283 AC).

 

Is there room for error? Sure. But what we have at the moment implies that the battle should be seen as occurring in 283 AC, and all that we know further tells us that it should then be very early in the year.

 

 

I also saw some discussion on the length of the war vs the length of the siege of Storm's End. Both are described as having lasted "close to a year". But what is all "close to a year"? 10 months, 11 months, 13 months, perhaps even 14 months? How much time can pass for these characters to still describe it as such? People's opinions on that have differed over the years, but there are a few things to consider:

  • Robert's Rebellion is officially considered to have started when Jon Arryn called his banners, and ended with the Sack. Sure, the siege of Storm's End was still ongoing, and Dragonstone had not yet fallen, yet this is how history records it, according to Yandel.
  • The siege of Storm's End began a while into the war (consider all that happened between war's start and the start of the siege, regardless of how long it would have taken all the armies exactly to travel from location to location), but would have ended reasonably fast after war's end, when Eddard rode forth from KL following his argument with Robert. 

 

So is the "close to a year" that Robert's Rebellion itself lasted the exact same amount of time as the "close to a year" that the siege of Storm's End lasted? My guess (but again, that's my interpretation) is that the war lasted somewhat longer than 12 months (e.g., 13 months), but the siege lasted somewhat less (e.g., 10-11 months). Feel free to disagree :)

Sorry, while you were keying all this I was keying my reply directly underneath, so you've answered a lot of my questions. I appreciate the references  you've provided for Jon Con's 17 years since he lost at Stoney Sept. I'm going to adjust the date of that battle on my timeline, because I had it in the middle of 282. And there's no need for Elia to conceive Aegon right after her bedrest! We were just trying to determine the absolute earliest it might occur. I appreciate all you've shared!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Feather Crystal said:

Hi Rhaenys! It's quite the challenge you've accepted working on the wiki timeline project! I've only seriously starting banging away at it the last week or so, so forgive me if I'm going over ground that you feel has already been settled. I am trying to remain objective here, because I have my own personal theories like anyone else, but by setting down a few known parameters, I think it can be tightened up.

I'm always open to discussing timelines, no matter how many times. Through discussions, new pieces of info can be discovered, and mistakes cleared up! 

So don't ever hesitate to pull me into such a conversation if you feel like it!

 

Regarding the timeline project itself, I had a thread for it but it was closed a while back because it was archived. I was thinking about creating a new one, so if you come across a mistake or find something that can be added, please inform me about that there (I'll post the thread in the wiki-sub forum over the next few days).

 

1 minute ago, Feather Crystal said:

I am familiar with the assertion that the False Spring lasted less than two turns before winter returned, which is kind of weird, because how do you plan a tourney and get everyone there so quickly? But, never mind. We're going with it, because it does seem to fit with some other known parameters.

In my opinion Elia's marriage and years of children's birth years are extremely central, as is the assertion that baby Aegon was about a year old when he was killed.

The thing is, that Aegon's age at the time of his death is semi-canon (SSM). As long as SSMs are not disputed by canon text, I always assume they are correct. But with the canon information contradicting Aegon's age or having been 12 to 14 months old at his death (SSM), as we now can at least place Aegon's birth near the start of 282 AC, I'd say that this SSM has been superseeded.

But perhaps @Ran can say something about this?

 

1 minute ago, Feather Crystal said:

There are also known timelines like the Rebellion lasting a year, and the siege of Storm's End also lasting one year. Robert's defeat at Ashford marks the time when Mace Tyrell would have marched on Storm's End. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think he arrived there about the same time as Robert reached Stoney Sept. Thus we've set a sort of countdown. It depends upon how long you think it took Ned to leave Kings Landing after the Sack to lift the siege. Did it take him more than a month? Two months? Three? Because the length of time it took Ned to get to Storm's End is the same length of time it took Robert to go to Gulltown, then to Storms End to call his banners, move his army and fight three short battles near Summerhal, take captives back to Storms End, then move west to Ashford, and then race north to Stoney Sept. It's a lot, but I guess it depends upon the distance travelled.

In the end, all of these armies would have travelled as fast as GRRM requires them to. Even if that means an army took extremely long, or managed to cover a huge amount of ground in two days. The exact amount of weeks is something we will likely never know (with the exception of the time between the Trident and the Sack).

 

1 minute ago, Feather Crystal said:

Getting back to Elia and why she is so central to the timing. Her marriage to Rhaegar is only given as 280, but it's early enough in the year for Rhaenys to be born also in 280. There's only a 2 month sliding window here. 

Marriage - Jan 280 - Mar 280

Rhaenys Bday - Oct 280 - Dec 280

Elia was bedridden for six months, so unable to travel or conceive until April 281 - June 281 

Likely birth month for Aegon = Jan 282 - Mar 282

Martin counts the pregnancies in his books with 9 months, so I'd use 9 months, slightly changing your timeline here.

She had been born on Dragonstone nine moons after their flight, 

Nine moons had waxed and waned, and Robb had been born in Riverrun while his father still warred in the south. 

There was never a maid that he deflowered who did not deliver a strong son or fair daughter nine moons later, or so the stories say.

In nine months time, these maids all give birth to golden-haired children whilst still insisting they had never had carnal knowledge of a man.

1 minute ago, Feather Crystal said:

Thus the Sack of Kings Landing should have occurred sometime around Jan 283 - Mar 283, unless you feel as Lady Rhodes does that Aegon was 15 months when he was killed, then the Sack could have occurred as late as 3 more months later.

The timing of Daenerys's birthday and the fact that sh was born ~9 months after the Sack tells us tells us that the Sack should have occurred around the 3rd/4th quarter of the year, not before.

 

1 minute ago, Feather Crystal said:

One of the dates we were questioning was when Elia was attacked. The wiki lists 280. So she was attacked prior to giving birth to Rhaenys? Where can I find this information? It's not a pressing issue though, because it has no impact on the timeline for the Rebellion, but the detachment sent out to deal with the Kingswood Brotherhood does. However, if we can use Jaime's knighthood and length of stay at Casterly Rock before going to the tourney of Harrenhal, then we can make an educated guess that the Kingswood Brotherhood was defeated around Sept 281.

Could you link the page? Because that is not stated in the text, so that needs to be corrected.

 

3 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Sorry, while you were keying all this I was keying my reply directly underneath, so you've answered a lot of my questions. I appreciate the references  you've provided for Jon Con's 17 years since he lost at Stoney Sept. I'm going to adjust the date of that battle on my timeline, because I had it in the middle of 282. And there's no need for Elia to conceive Aegon right after her bedrest! We were just trying to determine the absolute earliest it might occur. I appreciate all you've shared!

Considering the timing of her marriage to Rhaegar, and the fact that she had two pregnancies and half a year bedrest before Aegon's birth by early 282 AC (the first mention of Aegon on Dragonstone), the picture that is being painted does not suggest a lot of time between the end of her bedrest and her becoming pregnant.

Although I must say, "half a year" of bedrest does not necessarily have to have been exactly six months. How precise was Connington being? Could it have been 5 months (or perhaps something like 4,5 even)? But with 9 + 6 + 9 months we reach a full 2 years, which pretty much fills the space between Elia's marriage to Rhaegar and the first mention of Aegon. So the time in between won't have been too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

I'm always open to discussing timelines, no matter how many times. Through discussions, new pieces of info can be discovered, and mistakes cleared up! 

So don't ever hesitate to pull me into such a conversation if you feel like it!

 

Regarding the timeline project itself, I had a thread for it but it was closed a while back because it was archived. I was thinking about creating a new one, so if you come across a mistake or find something that can be added, please inform me about that there (I'll post the thread in the wiki-sub forum over the next few days).

 

The thing is, that Aegon's age at the time of his death is semi-canon (SSM). As long as SSMs are not disputed by canon text, I always assume they are correct. But with the canon information contradicting Aegon's age or having been 12 to 14 months old at his death (SSM), as we now can at least place Aegon's birth near the start of 282 AC, I'd say that this SSM has been superseeded.

But perhaps @Ran can say something about this?

 

In the end, all of these armies would have travelled as fast as GRRM requires them to. Even if that means an army took extremely long, or managed to cover a huge amount of ground in two days. The exact amount of weeks is something we will likely never know (with the exception of the time between the Trident and the Sack).

 

Martin counts the pregnancies in his books with 9 months, so I'd use 9 months, slightly changing your timeline here.

She had been born on Dragonstone nine moons after their flight, 

Nine moons had waxed and waned, and Robb had been born in Riverrun while his father still warred in the south. 

There was never a maid that he deflowered who did not deliver a strong son or fair daughter nine moons later, or so the stories say.

In nine months time, these maids all give birth to golden-haired children whilst still insisting they had never had carnal knowledge of a man.

The timing of Daenerys's birthday and the fact that sh was born ~9 months after the Sack tells us tells us that the Sack should have occurred around the 3rd/4th quarter of the year, not before.

 

Could you link the page? Because that is not stated in the text, so that needs to be corrected.

 

Considering the timing of her marriage to Rhaegar, and the fact that she had two pregnancies and half a year bedrest before Aegon's birth by early 282 AC (the first mention of Aegon on Dragonstone), the picture that is being painted does not suggest a lot of time between the end of her bedrest and her becoming pregnant.

Although I must say, "half a year" of bedrest does not necessarily have to have been exactly six months. How precise was Connington being? Could it have been 5 months (or perhaps something like 4,5 even)? But with 9 + 6 + 9 months we reach a full 2 years, which pretty much fills the space between Elia's marriage to Rhaegar and the first mention of Aegon. So the time in between won't have been too long.

 

Having the Battle of the Bells beginning in 283 now seems too late, even with all the battles Robert had. If Aegon was born late spring 282, he'd be 18 months old if the Sack were in the fall of 283.

The text re: the Kingswood Brotherhood being a nuisance in 280 is here: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Years_after_Aegon's_Conquest#Year_281_After_the_Conquest

Quote

 

Year 280 After the Conquest

Main article: 280 AC.

280 AC saw the realm troubled by the Kingswood Brotherhood, leading to several abductions. It took an attack on Princess Elia Martell, the wife of Crown Prince Rhaegar Targaryen, and the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, Ser Gerold Hightower, for King Aerys II Targaryen to finally act and order his Kingsguard to eliminate the Brotherhood.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

 

Having the Battle of the Bells beginning in 283 now seems too late, even with all the battles Robert had.

Could you explain why?

 

Quote

The text re: the Kingswood Brotherhood being a nuisance in 280 is here: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Years_after_Aegon's_Conquest#Year_281_After_the_Conquest

 

Hmm... that's odd. The Kingwood Brotherhood has no confirmed dates, besides them being defeated in 281 AC. I'll search in my notes to be certain, but if I cannot find anything I'll see to it that that is fixed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Could you explain why?

 

Hmm... that's odd. The Kingwood Brotherhood has no confirmed dates, besides them being defeated in 281 AC. I'll search in my notes to be certain, but if I cannot find anything I'll see to it that that is fixed!

I really don't have any text to offer for support, just impressions. Having the Battle of Stoney Sept a whole year after Lyanna went missing leaves lots of time for Robert's movements to be sure - allowing roughly 2 1/2 months on average for each significant movement. But wait - scratch that - we have to go from when Jon Arryn called his banners. Having the Sack in the third quarter of 283 makes Aegon closer to two years old rather than one year old. Also, if the Sack is in the 3rd quarter of 283, then Jon Arryn didn't call his banners until the 3rd quarter of 282? Brandon came from the shorter distance of Riverrun, while his father was already coming down from Winterfell, so you'd think they could've arrived to Kings Landing during the first quarter of 282, right???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...